Cantrip House Rule

[FrogReaver]

So I had an idea and I'm not even sure if it's a good idea yet but I wanted to share and see what you all thought.

The House Rule would remove cantrip scaling (except for Eldritch blast) which would then get tied to warlock level for scaling.

To compensate for the lack of scaling cantrips I would reward casters with extra spell slots. I'm leaning toward 1 extra spell slot of each level up to level 6 spells. You would gaub the extra spell slot immediately upon reaching the level where you first gain that spell slot. For example a level 5 Wizard would have spell slots of 5 level 1, 4 level 2, 3 level 3 but his cantrips would not scale.

Is there any forseeable issues or problems you can think of with doing this? Is it too imbalanced compared to the current rules? Do you like the change?

 

[Nutation]

Well, the first question is "Why?". What problem are you trying to fix?
Full casters only get one spell of levels 6-9 (disregarding refilling slots). This gives them an extra Heroes' Feast, for example, which has a rather bigger effect than casting a cantrip every round.

 

[FreezerBurnedDM]

Well, the first question is "Why?". What problem are you trying to fix?

I can't agree more. Cantrip scaling exists for a reason, I think you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The one exception is that I think scaling eldritch blast alone to warlock levels isn't bad. It nerfs one level warlock dips slightly.

 

[FrogReaver]

The next person that asks why gets blocked.

I mean Seriously? I ask what issues my suggested change has. I ask if you like it. I ask if it's balanced. What the heck does Why I am looking at this change have to do with any of that?

 

[FrogReaver]

Full casters only get one spell of levels 6-9 (disregarding refilling slots). This gives them an extra Foresight, for example, which has a rather bigger effect than casting a cantrip every round.

Actually full casters get a 2nd level 6 slot at level 19 and a 2nd level 7 slot at level 20.

More importantly though, I the house rule I proposed stopped giving extra spells at level 6 spells. So you wouldn't get an extra 9th level spell like you mention here.

 

[FrogReaver]

The one exception is that I think scaling eldritch blast alone to warlock levels isn't bad. It nerfs one level warlock dips slightly.

My suggestion to change EB to scale off warlock level had nothing to do with warlock dips. It had to do with keeping the EB warlock a viable concept after removing cantrip scaling.

 

[FreezerBurnedDM]

The next person that asks why gets blocked.

I mean Seriously? I ask what issues my suggested change has. I ask if you like it. I ask if it's balanced. What the heck does Why I am looking at this change have to do with any of that?

The why is because every game is different and without understanding what caused you to want to make the change, I really can't say if it's balanced or not.

With no other information, I'd say i'd say your proposed homebrew rule is not balanced. Cantrip scaling exists for a reason and there is no reason to change it. I'd say your proposed rule change make spell casters even stronger and throws off the balance of the game, particularity at lower levels.

 

[Nutation]

I wasn't asking "why" to insinuate you're doing a bad thing. It's because we weigh the various aspects of the game differently. I can't read your mind, so I don't know what you consider balanced.

As a constructive question, how many fights do you expect your players to handle in a day? (I don't think short rests are important to this question, but fights are.)

The half-casters get a big boost. Rangers and paladins probably weren't relying much on cantrips. You get more smites, and that's probably not needed.
You exclude warlocks, and that makes sense.
I think I would not boost the character's highest level slot, but stop at the next-highest. Maybe one step lower for the half-casters, maybe not. You get more utility spell castings that way, which could be interesting. Alternatively, you get more spell attacks of low level, which might feel similar to the previous cantrip approach.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyone want to actually talk about the proposed changes instead of why I'm asking about the proposed changes?

 

[FrogReaver]

As a constructive question, how many fights do you expect your players to handle in a day? (I don't think short rests are important to this question, but fights are.)

Fights per day: Anywhere from 1 to 8. My current campaign does 1-3 typically. Others swear by the 6-8 mantra. I'd be interested in hearing in the proposed change has issues in any of those circumstances.

The half-casters get a big boost. Rangers and paladins probably weren't relying much on cantrips. You get more smites, and that's probably not needed.

You exclude warlocks, and that makes sense.
I think I would not boost the character's highest level slot, but stop at the next-highest. Maybe one step lower for the half-casters, maybe not. You get more utility spell castings that way, which could be interesting. Alternatively, you get more spell attacks of low level, which might feel similar to the previous cantrip approach.

Half-Casters are something I haven't considered. I'll have to think some on whether they really need more spells.

I'm open to other implantations of the basic concept *non-scaling cantrips, spell slots to compensate*